Why not have photos of those killed by drunk drivers on the label, carton, 6 or 12 pack case?

What about putting photos of people who are out of shape on fast food packages? ;)

Because beer and liquor = $$$

And legislators are hypocrites.

It’s the same reasoning that promotes attempts to ban electronic cigarettes (as potentially unsafe), yet sidesteps addressing the proven health risk of tobacco products.

A lot more people die from smoking than from drunk driving. Smoking is still a huge public health problem, but because the effects take longer to develop, the focus is on dissuading people from ever starting smoking. Smoking is detrimental to everyone who smokes.

Alcohol provides a lesson the first time one gets drunk. Many people learn at that point to be careful. The number that ignore that warning and continue on to alcoholism is in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 %. So the need to put graphic pictures to deter 10 to 15 % is a little overblown. And, as someone who long ago stopped drinking and smoking both, I often thought twice about smoking, but I would ignore anything to do with trying to keep me from drinking.

Because most people who drink don’t then drink and drive, why subject them to those horrific images?

This is a legitimate function of government? Any of this bullshit?

Or a photo of a nerdy flasher with no friends on a blow up doll….ewwww XD

How about pictures of crying babies on bottles of perfume?

George “dubya” on a monkey costume?

“The government wants to start forcing cigarette companies to put photos of people sick and dying of cancer on the package and carton to discourage future smokers and scare current smokers clean.”

Do you have a source for this? I have never heard of it.

Fact from fiction truth from diction, will these pictures really do anything to stop or even decrease drunk driving deaths? It seems like it would be a horrible breach of privacy for the folks whose pictures might be utilized. Of course the people pictured could sign a release to use the photos, but I know for a fact my family would not allow pictures of my grandfather after he was nearly killed by a drunk driver to be placed on a liquor bottle. The people most exposed to these horrific scenes would probably be bartenders which really would do no good.

I think our government should apply their energy and our money to better educating our kids so they have more smarts when they grow up to make better choices in their lives. Parents too need to hammer into their kids skulls that there are consequences with the choices they make and our politicians should start leading by example instead of bragging about having another glass of Merlot, or be out in public shoving greasy fast food in their pie hole. In the meantime we are turning into a freaking Nanny state and a nation of whiners!

@johnpowell Check out this article from today about new cigarette warnings .

I don’t believe scare tactics work.

I agree with @Cruiser 100%.

Parents or guardians need to take personal responsibility. Blaming the government for personal choices is ridiculous. There doesn’t need to be one more thing on any liquor label than the alcohol content as far as I’m concerned.

How on earth would photos cause anyone to stop drinking at a fair, festival, tavern or sporting event?

Do scare tactics work on adults? As far as I know scare tactics don’t even work on teens. Here they take teens to morgues, and show them crashed cars…Wisconsin is still one of the biggest teen drinking states.

@SpatzieLover I was at a wedding in Madison this past weekend and was reminded by the host that Wisconsin seems to allow underage drinking in the presence of their guardian or parent with consent. I quickly turned to my 15 and 12 yr old and said “don’t even think about asking!”

@Cruiser We own a bar. Yes, it is legal here. A minor may order liquor if the parent or guardian with them gives permission.

Scare tactics rarely work, and I don’t believe in using the shock factor and foisting disturbing images on people.

Keep the milk carton space for missing kids.

All of these methods are nothing more than control freakery tactics, everyone is aware of the hazards of smoking, the ugliness of drunk driver casualties, and everything else, such as animal cruelty. I highly RESENT PETA and other groups that foist their images on me. I am a smart woman, I can IMAGINE what a decapitated drunk driving victim looks like. Keep your crude images away from me!

@SpatzieLover Can I ask how often you asked serve the under 21 kids? What’s the youngest you think you served?

The only time my family has done it, it’s been for family or very close friends. It is up to each bartender/owner to decide if they want to allow a minor to drink in their establishment.

I have a special needs cousin. When he’d come with his dad on a Sunday to watch a game, he was always allowed a beer and some junk food. We have a dear family friend with a Down Syndrome son. When he was a teen, his dad & a bro would come in to watch a game, and he’d be allowed one beer and junk food, too. In both situations, we certainly knew neither boy would be driving.

In our case, my family has always made it clear that we are serving the adult, and the adult is deciding it is okay for their 19–20yr old to drink. We have never directly served an underage drinker.

In our own family, kids have always been allowed wine/champagne/beer at the table with a special dinner.

@zenvelo *_That is not the case many times. Until one of my neighbors lost his license, he drove drunk or over the limit many times; not only in this county but others he has lived in. He was amazed by what he learned in court ordered DUI class. He said he learned that for each time a drunk actually gets stopped and ticked by cops they have drove somewhere more than 2 miles drunk more than 60 times.

The number that ignore that warning and continue on to alcoholism is in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 %. So the need to put graphic pictures to deter 10 to 15 % is a little overblown. There are more percent of smokers? I don’t think so, and off that logic if there are not more smokers than drinkers why have graphic photos to try and deter a number much smaller?

@FPSMadPaul Because most people who drink don’t then drink and drive, why subject them to those horrific images? Most people don’t smoke, so why subject them to horrific or gross images?

@SuperMouse Fact from fiction truth from diction, will these pictures really do anything to stop or even decrease drunk driving deaths? I agree with you (bet you are shocked) that will not. What will is when some person is stopped driving inebriated you take his/her keys, tow the car, and cut the driver license in half and make them take a bus the rest of their life. Make it like a hand gun to an ex-con, even if you didn’t use a gun in your crime, you lose the right to have one, and since driving is a privilege and not a right they can’t bitch. No, it won’t take effect right away, it will take 50,000 to 300,000 chuckleheads nation wise to end up on the bus before people will start taking notice and stop doing it for fear of never driving again.

@johnpowell I first got wind of it off the TV, Nightline or the 11 o clock news or something, it popped out as one of the line of stories that grabbed my attention.
Here and here are some online content on it.

Like the images from the Red Asphalt series? That might work.

It’s not because cigarettes are worth any more money than liquor! Tobacco tax is a huge money-maker for government… it’s because if you are smoking, you WILL eventually get sick and die. It’s pretty much guaranteed.

Whereas with beer/wine/liquor there is no guarantee. One, drinking in moderation has been proven to be healthy. Two, there are PLENTY of people who don’t go out and get in a car accident and kill someone from drunk driving. So why should I, who enjoys a glass of whisky one or two nights a week before bed, be subject to those ads?

With smoking, there are no potential benefits, and there is NO chance that you can enjoy it without harming yourself…

That’s why. It’s a pretty big difference.

@Hypocrisy_Central You mis-read what I wrote. 100% of cigarette smokers are harming their health from the first cigarette. But only 10 -15% of those who try alcohol one time become active alcoholics.

The effort is to deter 100% of the smokers from smoking.Efforts against drunk driving are trying to deter drunk driving, not drinking.

Canada has pictures of tobacco brain death, bad teeth, some guy on a breathing machine and much more on cigarette packs. They’ve been around for more than ten years. The example I linked is missing the statistics one, (and the breathing machine man) which says that suicide is the second biggest cause of death in Canada, if I recall correctly. (at least, back in 1996)

Doesn’t seem to have helped much. Maybe they’re not graphic enough. But alcohol is just about as ancient as man, I doubt some pics would change much. If a soldier who went to war became an alcoholic after seeing a buncha sick shit, I don’t think the pictures will convince him. Well, I guess not everyone’s a soldier. Well, it couldn’t hurt. Why not.

@mrrich724 The crux of the issue should not hinge on whether the person smoking will die at some point in the future and if that death was tied to smoking. I say taking anything into the lungs that is not natural is harming the lungs; I do not care where the smoke came from. If the person smoking is killing themselves, that is fine because they will not harm me or mine on the roadway.
Two, there are PLENTY of people who don’t go out and get in a car accident and kill someone from drunk driving. So why should I, who enjoys a glass of whisky one or two nights a week before bed, be subject to those ads? Three, there are PLENTY of people who don’t go out and puss or smoke ANYTHING. So why should I, who take care of my lungs and health, be subject to those ads? If I happen to purchase a pack for my bother or my niece who do smoke even when I told them it was a bad idea I should not have to see that on a pack.

@zenvelo You mis-read what I wrote. 100% of cigarette smokers are harming their health from the first cigarette. But only 10 -15% of those who try alcohol one time become active alcoholics.

The effort is to deter 100% of the smokers from smoking.Efforts against drunk driving are trying to deter drunk driving, not drinking. If I miss your message then I will amend it like this, to subject the public to that when many, maybe most who are not smoking now won’t start is ludicrous. The health detriments from one cigarette is probably no greater than getting smoke from three BBQs.

The lets not have photos on beer cans, lets have a spine and when that person fails the breathalyzer they go away in cuffs, the car is towed, and their license is cut into and they never get it back. That I can certainly live with.

@everyone :: Thanks for the links. I had not heard of this. And as a smoker it will probably just make me put my smokes in a empty Altoids tin.